On Nonviolence, Terrorists and Will Potter
If you haven’t seen Will Potter’s talk at the University of Washington Law School, it’s a must see if only for one passage at the end:
Regardless of how you feel about these tactics–I think there’s a time and a place to debate if property destruction is violence, or if nonviolent civil disobedience is appropriate anymore, or if arson gives the movement a bad name. All of these debates should be happening, and they’ve been happening, I know, for a very long time. But I want to argue that at this point a lot of it is completely irrelevant because the government is not making these distinctions between: Well here are the extremists, and here are the reasonable animal rights activists. . . .
It’s all part of the same pile to them, and they’re infiltrating all of it, they’re throwing their resources into all of it, they’re making no delineations whatsoever because it’s all part of the same ideology. And just like the Red Scare, it’s not the individual people that are a threat, it’s the ideology that’s seen as a threat. So if we fall into this trap of naming names and pledging oaths to certain tactics, if you stand up and shout from the rooftops, We’re nonviolent and we condemn all these people and we condemn anyone that does anything different than what we’re doing, it just fuels, and paves the road to go down the same path that happened in the 40s and 50s and many other times in US history.
I by no means think anyone should stop thinking critically about nonviolence (and how they define it) and whether or not it has been, will be or can be successful when it comes to the liberation of sentient nonhumans. (And I will continue drawing from Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? this week.) However, I know that many people are fearful of admitting their support of tactics such as property damage. But when the government doesn’t make a distinction between your peaceful vegan life that includes boycotting and signing petitions, and that of an activist who breaks into a fur farm to liberate animals or one who participates in a home demonstration at the residence of a CEO of a research lab, spending time and energy condemning those who use different tactics might not matter in the end if we’re all targets simply because we don’t want to kill anyone unless we have to, and we don’t want to use the lives, talents, secretions or body parts of others for our own gain.
PS: Today will not be as free as I had originally planned, so The Delusional Carnivore will have to wait until tomorrow. I know, I know, you’re gravely disappointed. As am I.
I'm not sure I understand Potter's point. I don't see how government tactics, or its failure to make a distinction, render irrelevant an "internal" debate about the effectiveness of violence and non-violence. I don't think too many people choose sides on this issue based on government surveillance methods. It may affect people's decisions to publish their views, but that's a different issue.
An aside re: the debate itself: property damage is violence. Arson is violence. I don't think anyone truly believes that they aren't. If there is a debate about this, it should be about whether that particular type of violence is justified under the circumstances. I personally believe that in 99% of the cases it's not, in part because the negative publicity it brings usually greatly outweighs the minimal effectiveness of the act: small step forward, big step back.
(p.s. thanks for the post "do welfare reforms lead to abolition." I hope to contribute to that discussion soon)
he's not talking about quelling the debate. He's talking about how we tend to sell each other out. We're not sticking up for each other. It's one thing to disagree with someone's actions, it's another to go around bad mouthing them.
Scott,
Many activists do consider property damage part of nonviolence. Arson is a different story (though as I understand it used to also be considered nonviolence to some, but the potential for injury of nonhumans or humans was determined to be too great and also arson isn't always controllable).
Potter's point as I understand it is that while we spend a lot of time distinguishing ourselves from others who are on "our team," if you will (i.e., against animal exploitation), the government doesn't care about such distinctions, as their enemy is the idea of being against animal exploitation, so we're all lumped together to them, regardless of how dramatically different we might think we are.
It's the irony that I appreciate. I thought the passage mentioned was fascinating as a vehicle for self-reflection. We do spend what often seems to be an inordinate amount of time separating ourselves from others who have similar beliefs, meanwhile we are all potential terrorists according to the government.
Thanks very much for posting this, Mary.
Scott, to clarify, my comment was referring much more to public statements than to "internal" debate. Some national organizations, and even some grassroots groups, have felt the need to go out of their way to condemn some activists, thereby hoping to show that their organization is legitimate (and not "terrorist"). I argue that buying into this "with us or against us" trap (Or as Elaine mentioned, selling others out) only makes it easier for the government to expand the terrorism rhetoric. Instead, it needs to be confronted, and rejected, head on. Best, Will
Thanks will (and Mary). That makes it a little more clear. I agree.